POLITICS SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Dear Imam Feisal,
Ramadan Kareem. I pray that you are bearing up under the strain of recent months. I write as a well-wisher and friend. Though we met only briefly, our encounter turned out to be at a fateful moment, and, for me at least, was of lasting significance. We met, you will recall, on September 5, 2001, at a symposium on a book I was about to publish recounting my journey into Islam and Christianity in the Holy Land. (The book was actually released six days later, on September 11.) You appeared on the panel offering a Muslim response to my journey. I was deeply moved by your presence—it wasn’t easy finding a Muslim cleric willing to appear publicly with an Israeli—and by the warm words you had for the book itself, which was written from a position of deep Jewish attachment to the land of Israel. I felt grateful for the courage you showed then, supporting my call for the Muslim world to come to terms with the Jewish return home. And I recall you beaming with gratitude when I spoke of my experience in joining the Muslim prayer line and the reverence—the love—I felt for its choreography of surrender to God.
In recent weeks, in discussions with friends in the American Jewish community about your initiative to build a mosque and Muslim community center near Ground Zero, I’ve found myself repeatedly defending your integrity as an interfaith partner. If you are not a worthy dialogue partner for the Jewish community, then there is almost no one in Islam with whom we can speak.
When our mutual friend and veteran of Muslim-Jewish dialogue, Yehezkel Landau, spoke on your behalf at the Community Board public hearing recently held over your proposed project, I felt it was a gesture of what Jews call kiddush Hashem, sanctifying God’s name. Yehezkel told the hostile audience that, as a former Israeli soldier whose son is now serving in the Israeli army, he affirms that you are “a spiritual ally, not an enemy.” Though other speakers on your behalf were heckled, Yehezkel was greeted with respectful silence.
That small moment of grace revealed how Muslims and Jews can help each other. As Judea Pearl—father of Daniel Pearl, The Wall Street Journal reporter beheaded by jihadists—has put it, Muslims can provide legitimacy for the Jewish people in the East and Jews can provide legitimacy for Islam in the West. I know that same sentiment inspires your longtime outreach to the American Jewish community. You told me that the model for Islamic modernization you sought was exemplified by modern Orthodox Judaism. That you would find inspiration in one aspect of the Jewish response to modernity says much about your openness toward Judaism and friendship toward the Jewish people.
I don’t deny being troubled by some of your statements on the Middle East. You have publicly called yourself a supporter of Israel—and how many Muslim clerics have dared speak those words?—yet you’ve also endorsed a “one-state solution,” code for the destruction of the Jewish state. You have rejected the subterfuge of some Muslim clerics who condemn terror against “innocent civilians” but exclude Israelis, yet you’ve refused to condemn Hamas.
Sometimes it seems that you want to be all things to all people—a liberal to non-Muslim Americans, upholder of Muslim grievances to traditionalists—and that you simply deny the resulting dissonance, as if every contradiction can be healed by your goodwill. Some of your statements about America and the Muslim world—partly blaming U.S. foreign policy for September 11, or saying that America has killed more Muslims than Al Qaeda has killed innocent non-Muslims, as if the terrorists and their targets were morally equivalent—pander to the most simplistic sentiments within your community. But where some see hypocrisy, or even a hidden agenda, I prefer to see the struggles of a good man who wants to help his community enter the American mainstream, while reassuring the faithful of his loyalty.
I believe that you intend to create a center of Islamic moderation near Ground Zero. And it is precisely for that reason that I am turning to you with a plea to reconsider your plans to build the center in its current form. Instead, I urge you to consider turning the site into a center for interfaith encounter. Build the mosque—but do so together with a church and a synagogue and a center for common reflection for all three faiths and for those with no faith. Do this, Imam Feisal, not to surrender to your critics but to honor their pain, and, in the process, to honor Islam.
My own point of reference in this controversy is the Auschwitz convent. You will recall that, in the mid-1980s, a group of Carmelite nuns established a convent on the grounds of Auschwitz. For Jews around the world, the convent was perceived as an attempt to “Christianize” the Holocaust, to deny the Jewishness of the overwhelming majority of the victims of Auschwitz.
In 1989, I went to Poland and discovered to my shock that the Jewish critics were wrong. The convent was founded in Auschwitz I, a slave-labor camp and administrative center for Auschwitz II, or Birkenau, the death camp whose purpose was the destruction of the Jewish people. The distinction was crucial for Poles: Thousands of Polish Catholics died in Auschwitz I, and the nuns were there to pray for their souls and counter the evil that had been done on Polish soil. There was, in other words, no intention to Christianize the Holocaust. Yet Pope John Paul II seemed to realize that, even if Jews had misunderstood the nuns’ intentions, their sensitivities toward that ground deserved respect. And so the Polish pope ordered a convent of Polish nuns out of Auschwitz—in the process sending an extraordinary message of spiritual generosity.
I am urging you to rise to your moment of spiritual greatness. You have dedicated your life to helping Islam enter the American mainstream. In its current form, though, your project will have the opposite effect. The way to ease Islam into the American mainstream is in the company of its fellow Abrahamic faiths. The great obstacle to Islam’s reconciliation with the West is the adherence of even mainstream Muslims to a kind of medieval notion of interfaith relations. Muslim spokesmen often note how, during the Middle Ages, Islam provided protection for Christianity and Judaism. But that model—tolerance under Islamic rule—is inadequate for our time. The new interfaith theology affirms the spiritual legitimacy of all three Abrahamic faiths. Whether or not we accept one another’s faiths as theologically true, we can affirm them as devotionally true, that is, as worthy vessels for a God-centered life.
What will define a genuinely American Islam will be its ability to embrace this modern notion of interfaith relations. A 15-story Islamic center near Ground Zero will undermine that process. In the Muslim world, as you well know, architecture often buttresses triumphalist theology. Throughout the Holy Land, minarets deliberately tower over churches. However inadvertently, your current plan would be understood by large parts of the Muslim world as a victory over the West. Merely adding an interfaith component to the proposed Islamic center would not counter that distorted impression. Instead, it would likely reinforce the medieval theology of extending “protection” to Christianity and Judaism under the auspices of Islam. But an interfaith center in which the three Abrahamic faiths are given equal status would send the message that I believe you intend to convey.
There is no more appropriate place to assert the emergence of an American Islam than Ground Zero. And no American Muslim leader is better positioned to birth that process, dear Imam Feisal, than you.
With respect and blessings,
Yossi Klein Halevi
Yossi Klein Halevi is a contributing editor to The New Republic and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem. He is the author of At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden: A Jew's Search for God with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land. This article ran in the September 23, 2010 issue of the magazine.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
59 comments
This letter seems to suggest, in contradictory fashion, that the perception of Park51 is both false and compelling simultaneously. Halevi appreciates the peaceful and righteous intentions of Imam Rauf but urges him to compromise them. This open letter, this suggestion, amounts to the same thing as asking to move the mosque or not build it at all. Its asking the Iman to qualify his right and in doing so to qualify his faith. 'Yes Islam isn't all that bad, but come on its a little bad, throw a church in there too so it looks like a friendlier mosque.' It misses the point. American Muslims are Americans and have the right to practice their faith and build places of worship on private property. Constitutionally, legally and practically Islam is no better or worse than Christianity or Judaism and its adherents deserve no scorn or discrimination for the actions of foreign extremists. End of story.
- tahirjon
September 2, 2010 at 1:12am
tahirjon still doesn't get it. I have yet to see any examples where Islam and compromise aren't mutually exclusive, other than the quiet conduct of individual Muslims assimilating into the American mainstream. Imam Feisal may be all in favor of such assimilation, but the placement of this project has been a public relations disaster that could have been avoided through Governor Paterson's proposed compromise. What good are constitutional and legal rights if the project only serves to generate hostility? And the actions of foreign extremists have been followed by actions of homegrown extremists, such as the Beltway snipers and the Fort Hood shooter, all just horrible enough and all spaced out just enough to keep the anger going.
- NR114746
September 2, 2010 at 2:25am
You're correct, there have been domestic terrorists and spree killers that have aligned themselves with extremist Islam. But should ten million people endure scorn and discrimination because of the actions of a dozen murderers? The fact that they share a faith (in name) is simply too flimsy a reason to necessitate they move a community center. Open letters like this legitimize the notion that Islam, a thousand year old religion with hundreds of years of history in the United States, is somehow inextricably tied to the actions of modern Arab terrorists. Mayor Bloomberg said it best. "Islam did not attack the United States on 9/11." Nineteen ignorant violent thugs did. We're at war with their supporters, leaders and financiers for that reason. The extremists are the ones fighting a religious war, not us. No matter how you frame the debate or qualify the racism, be it with arguments for sensitivity or pragmatism, you still can't overcome the fact that they're average Americans exercising their American rights. And that's why the Constitution is the shortest, oldest and greatest in the world. No qualifications, no compromise. Everybody is created equal.
- tahirjon
September 2, 2010 at 4:11am
Yossi Klein Halevi deserves much credit for lowering the temperature and restoring much-needed proportion to the largely inflammatory and ignorant uproar about Imam Rauf. But the Polish analogy breaks down because the proposal is to build Cordoba House in a nation that affirms freedom of religion, the United States of America, not in a nation that was then operating under a Stalinist constitution. There's a Constitutional faith at stake here. What Rauf and the developers *will* decide to do, God only knows. But the proposal as it stands is an affirmation of an American fundamental.
- toddgitlin
September 2, 2010 at 9:18am
"other than the quiet conduct of individual Muslims..." Well, yeah. Other than THAT. Other than her grace, beauty, generosity, and intelligence, my wife is actually pretty average.
- miceelf
September 2, 2010 at 9:34am
Isn't there a contradiction between the two-state solution and the proposed one-state Ground Zero solution (the proposed inter-faith center)? I am not a Jew but I am a Zionist and believe strongly that the two-state solution is the only way to preserve a sovereign Jewish homeland - something Jews and Christians must share if they be true to their (Biblical) beliefs. The proposed inter-faith center subsumes that near Ground Zero there is but one, shared Abrahamic faith, whereas at Auschwitz the author praises the Pope's gesture not to Christianize it (if that is what motivated him to close the convent). I happen to have re-read Genesis and Exodus last night, and could not help but notice the sudden shifts (in the text, not time) from kindness to cruelty, from the reciprocal acts of generosity between Joseph (favored son of Jacob, or Israel) and the Hebrews and the Egyptians to the reciprocal acts of carnage between Moses and the Hebrews and the Egyptians. Inter-faith cooperation (what Christians refer to as ecumenism among denominations) sounds great in principle, but applying it in one instance and not another brings to mind the inconsistencies in behavior reflected in Genesis and Exodus.
- rayward
September 2, 2010 at 10:01am
"What good are constitutional and legal rights if the project only serves to generate hostility?" And yet, I (and others) defend the right of racists to speak their abhorrent statements and of child molesters to have representation at their trials. Tahirjon hit the nail on the head: no compromises. There is no basis for opposition to this besides the reality that a lot of people don't like Muslims, and that is not sufficient. People can not like it, or even hate it, but it simply does not matter. Muslims can practice their faith, just as Mormons, Jews, Sikhs and others do, whether or not everyone likes them. Also, on matters less central to constitutional principles, Halevi's letter is obviously well-intentioned, but is so focused on compromise that it quickly strays into the realm of the freakishly bizarre. His "interfaith theology" is ridiculous; of course no faith is going to recognize the "spiritual legitimacy" of any other faith. Every religion is, by its very nature, mutually exclusive, even if they pat members of other faiths on the head and say "you're really one of us."
- janus
September 2, 2010 at 10:22am
Anyone who talks about a one-state solution is an extremist and cannot pretend that inter-faith dialogue is his suit. Imam Rauf can speak nice words to Americans but his insistence that the one state solution is the only coherent one is very much rooted in Islamic thinking and history where Jews were tolerable only as dhimmis within a Muslim dominated country. He cannot pretend that he seeks understanding when he rejects Jewish claims to Jewish sovereignty. His inter-faith assumes a-priori that Islam is superior and has superior claims. I analogized his "inter faith" talk to the difference between the UN Universal Declaration of Human Right and the Cairo Islamic Universal Declaration of Human rights. It can mislead most people who don't fully realize that the Cairo Declaration is rooted in Islamic ethos which is essentially based on a different paradigm than the UN Declaration. Thus Rauf's preference to the one-state solution is coherent to him, within the tenets of his faith. But it ignores the great incoherence and injustice of such a solution to the Jewish ethos.
- noga1
September 2, 2010 at 10:32am
"A 15-story Islamic center near Ground Zero will undermine that process. In the Muslim world, as you well know, architecture often buttresses triumphalist theology. Throughout the Holy Land, minarets deliberately tower over churches." In general, 15 stories sounds tall. But, in that location, 15 stories is normal or even small. 7WTC, at 50 stories, is just the tallest of its neighbors. There are plenty of others on the same and adjacent blocks that are taller than 15 stories. Is there any indication that the Islamic Center will even have anything about its exterior other than its name that would associate it with Muslims?
- sighthnd
September 2, 2010 at 10:50am
Well-stated; hits at the heart of the controversy which is not Constitutional, but perceptional.
- mbt62
September 2, 2010 at 10:57am
The (Modern-) Orthodox Jewish tradition wouldn't allow a synagogue to be housed permanently and intentionally in the same building as a Church (for idolatrous reasons). There is an example of a working "inter-faith" relationship between Judaism and Islam in none other than Hebron. The Ma'arat Hamachpela (Cave of the Patriarchs) where Jews and Moslems share the same building and even share the same hall (Isaac's chamber) in a pre-arranged schedule. This schedule was borne out of the torment of the Goldstein affair and has held in place for almost 20 years. Sometimes crazy ideas like this can make a wonderful gateway into better relations. However, the likelihood of this happening is as slim as "peace" breaking out in the Middle East.
- streaming
September 2, 2010 at 11:11am
What does it matter what Imam Rauf intends? The owner of half the building site is Sharif El-Gamal, and Park51's website distances the project from Imam Rauf since late July. Current Park51 Tweets are all about "This is a Community Center, not a mosque" Imam Rauf has his hands full dealing with the emerging scandal of 'Rauf the Jersey City slumlord'. El-Gamal has his hands full re-inventing his image as NOT being a real estate tax deadbeat (payments were due in Januray and June) also looking for NYS municipal bonds to finance $70million (and now that Sharif is 37, he promises he will no longer punch anyone in the face so hard it breaks their nose as he did with a subletting tenant of brother Sammy El-Gamal.) "The Scam-and-Spin-Swimming-Pool-with-prayer-space-tbd-to-bypass-all-criticism" is alive and well thanks to the strange obsession so many have with the Constitution even when the story is about three Muslims whose personal ambition and egos have nothing to do with anything but the usual NYC real estate scam.
- K2K
September 2, 2010 at 11:48am
The learned opinion of Imam Faisal Rauf on what the Prophet Mohammed has to say about the future one-two-three-four-back-to-one state solution for Palestine: from September 1, 2010 Wall Street Journal "Letters From the Imam: Feisel Abdul Rauf on Israel and Iran" "...We've now come across two letters to the New York Times that reveal more about the imam's worldview. In a letter published on November 27, 1977, Mr. Rauf commented on Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic trip to Israel and encouraged his fellow Muslims to "give peace a chance." That John Lennon lyric sounds good. But he added: "For my fellow Arabs I have the following special message: Learn from the example of the Prophet Mohammed, your greatest historical personality. After a state of war with the Meccan unbelievers that lasted for many years, he acceded, in the Treaty of Hudaybiyah, to demands that his closest companions considered utterly humiliating. Yet peace turned out to be a most effective weapon against the unbelievers." He's referring to a treaty in the year 628 that established a 10-year truce between the Prophet Muhammad and Meccan leaders and was viewed by Muslims at the time as a defeat. But Muhammad used that period to consolidate his ranks and re-arm, eventually leading to his conquest of Mecca. Imam Rauf seems to be saying that Muslims should understand Sadat's olive branch in the same way, as a short-term respite leading to ultimate conquest. To drive that point home, he added in the same letter that "In a true peace it is impossible that a purely Jewish state of Palestine can endure. . . . In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority." ... Imam Rauf has said more moderate things, notably at a memorial service for our former colleague Daniel Pearl. But his calls for interfaith understanding are hard to square with his support for a strategy of "peace" in the service of Israel's long-term destruction. We asked Imam Rauf if his views had changed since the 1970s. His complete response: "It is amusing that journalists are combing through letters-to-the-editor that I wrote more than 30 years ago, when I was a young man, for clues to my evolution. As I re-read those letters now, I see that they express the same concerns—a desire for peaceful solutions in Israel, and for a humane understanding of Iran—that I have maintained, and worked hard on, in the years since those letters were published." "
- K2K
September 2, 2010 at 12:08pm
It would be interesting if Mayor Bloomberg would encourage and advocate the creation of an "interreligious" district in the immediate area where this purported Islamic cultural center is being built. Accordingly, adjacent to and directly across from this mosque, the various Christian denominations will build their respective "cultural centers"; the various branches of Judaism will build their representative "cultural centers"; and indeed, where all faiths would be invited to erect their own "cultural centers" as well. Surely, Imam Rauf would have no problem his Muslim worshipers encountering, and more importantly interacting on a daily basis, with devout Jews going to their morning or evening prayers or faithful Catholics going to their early or evening Mass. Afterall, this Islamic cultural center is all about faith and not politics. Right?
- skatztrade
September 2, 2010 at 1:45pm
Well yes, K2K - some of us have a "strange obsession" with the Constitution. Sheese.
- Sophia
September 2, 2010 at 3:48pm
To this open letter, my reaction is, "Bravo! Beautiful." I agree totally with Noga and K2K, and find the imam's "incoherence" disturbing. The constitution is important, but so is the kind of thing that the Community Board in NY should have considered, viz., the rest of the theater and symbolism about this project, what is comparable to the nuns' Auschwitz project. Halevi's message from a place truly friendly to the Imam, and yet articulately honest, should be one of the easiest messages for the Imam and a range of citizens to appreciate. --- The unsavory characters involved (as K2K points out), should underline the importance of at least listening to Halevi's message, it seems to me.
- yerubal
September 2, 2010 at 4:34pm
Guys - with respect - the Constitution doesn't care what Imam Rauf thinks about the one, two, three or four state solution. I agree with y'all, this is a lovely letter and some of Imam Rauf's positions seem to be unclear and many the real estate developer(s) is/are a snake. So?
- Sophia
September 2, 2010 at 4:51pm
I meant "maybe" the real estate developer(s) is/are a snake(s). Whatever:) If people made a fuss every time a proposed building was being developed by a snake we'd be living in tents. So, what else you got?
- Sophia
September 2, 2010 at 4:53pm
I just wrote my own blog in answer to Yossi Klein Halevi's confused article. You can find it here: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/09/02/the-confused-open-letter-to-imam-rauf-by-yossi-klein-halevi-why-his-plea-to-the-imam-wont-work/
- conservprof
September 2, 2010 at 6:17pm
I am with Sophia here. I really don't recall anyone even asking about the funding for various christian megachurches.
- miceelf
September 2, 2010 at 7:55pm
But Sophia, hasn't there been a consensus among the many posters here and elsewhere that constitutionally-wise Imam Rauf's project is impeccably protected by law? We are done with that part of the discussion. The big issue is this: Just because the project is thoroughly legal and constitutional, does that mean people cannot try to persuade the initiators to reconsider? Or express their unhappiness with this project and explain why? Here is vid about a pro-mosque protest: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/anti-semitic-incident-ground-zero-mosque-counter-protest Note please how the speakers at least on this video do not address the mosque issue. They are talking about something else. The Pakistani-looking speaker spells it out: "We’re not going to sit there and back these Zionist Jews”. Interesting how the mosque is thus translated directly into an anti-Israel and antisemitic position. This is the message being disseminated about the meaning of this mosque.
- noga1
September 2, 2010 at 8:11pm
But Noga, how can we be done with the discussion of the Constitution when people are trying to persuade the "initiators" to WAIVE their constitutional rights? Again, it's like saying the Little Rock 9, whose right to attend previously all-white schools was impeccably protected by the Constitution, should have waived that right because it would antagonize whites, rather than promote healing and reconciliation between the races. OF COURSE people have the right to express unhappiness about the project. But if the reason for entreating the initiators to waive their constitutional rights is that they should be "sensitive" to the objectors' angst, then that really is not legitimate. Just as in the Little Rock example, it should be recognized that the "unhappiness" is the opposers' own fault. It is they who are reacting with rancor, or with the false perception that the "mosque" is somehow associated with the 9/11 murderers. Dhurtado
- NR143296
September 2, 2010 at 8:58pm
"... e be done with the discussion of the Constitution when people are trying to persuade the "initiators" to WAIVE their constitutional rights? " To waive a right means to refrain from enforcing a right. The use of such a term as "waive" in this context suggests that there is some existential imperative obliging the initiators of this project to carry on with it despite the obvious protests against it. What, then, is this existential necessity for this mosque to be built right there on that specific spot?
- noga1
September 2, 2010 at 10:55pm
sophia: I find it strange how people say 'Constitution-end of discussion' when this is a real estate and tax avoidance scam that is abusing the protection of the Constitution by including a mosque. If there was no mosque, this whole project would already be dead. El-Gamal has already been advertising the location http://islamicfinder.org/getitWorld.php?id=102115&lang=english "We are trying to establish a full fledged Islamic Center in the lower Manhattan, only 2 blocks from World Trade Center, New York City, NY." [Kind of odd wording since the World Trade Center was destroyed on 9/11/2001 and the new building is called the Freedom Tower] This is not an existing congregation wanting to build their house of worship. yerubal: Community Board 1 only voted for a non-binding resolution in May in support of the community/cultural center. They deliberately avoided any opinion on the mosque. The vote was 29-1 with ten abstentions. The chairwoman, Julie Menin published her new opinion in the NY Daily News on August 30, 2010: "Better mosque compromise: Chair of community board wants interfaith center inside Park51 project" BY Julie Menin "...Now it is very clear that something must be done to address this dissension and to move to heal, not divide. I believe it is still possible to bridge the gap without compromising the core principles of what this project is about - not by moving the mosque further away from the site of the attacks, but by bringing other faiths in. The mosque and community center near Ground Zero should not be enshrined as a battleground of discord, but rather be transformed into an inter-faith center for reconciliation and peace-containing nondenominational houses of worship to be shared by Muslims, Christians and Jews. Its purpose - to bring us closer together, not split us further apart - could be reaffirmed in modified plans. ..." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/08/30/2010-08-30_better_mosque_compromise_chair_of_community_board_wants_interfaith_center_inside.html
- K2K
September 2, 2010 at 10:59pm
noga: "What, then, is this existential necessity for this mosque to be built right there on that specific spot?" El-Gamal hired a 19-year old man to scout for locations ONLY in southern Tribeca . Imam Rauf was quoted in the NYT on 12/09/2009 that the damage on 9/11 was the reason he wanted the site (funny how I can retrieve a NYT article from 1869, but suddenly this article refuses to appear from the URL). The location is NOT convenient to the Seaport and Financial District neighborhoods that lack any community center facilities. 45 Park Place is the only building that survived a direct hit on 9/11/2001, from the landing gear of UA175 (URL to FEMA drawing at view full comment break): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg
- K2K
September 2, 2010 at 11:13pm
Noga- To waive a right means to refrain from EXERCISING it, fwiw. As to "existential imperative" -- whatever that means -- it is not the burden of those who wish to exercise a constitutional right to justify that exercise with an "existential imperative" just because there are people who oppose the exercise of the constitutional right. That is particularly true where the opposition is based on religious bigotry. What was the "existential imperative" of the Little Rock 9 to attend the previously all-white school despite the obvious protests?
- NR143296
September 3, 2010 at 12:03am
Rauf and his people have a perfect right to build a mosque/community center anywhere they wish on bought private property, and as big as they like as long as they obey the zoning laws. No one is disputing this. But if the Constitutional issue is clear-cut, the widespread protest against the mosque/community center raises the following painful question, which is at the heart of what bothers most people: to which community does Imam Rauf see himself as primarily belonging, the American community or the world-wide Muslim umma? If he sees himself as primarily part of the American community, he will acknowledge his mistake and insensitivity, and move the mosque, thereby doing us all a big favor by strengthening the view of American Muslims as, primarily, Americans who share American feelings. If, however, he sees his primary duty to be to the Muslim world-wide umma he won't move the mosque, thereby weakening the general view of American Muslims as, primarily, Americans, and doing great damage to the reputation of the Muslim community in America. This is the heart of the emotional issue--as opposed to the Constitutional issue. Constitutionally he can keep on building the mosque/community center, as long as he finds the money. But is he part of the American community or not? Does he have the same feelings as the very large majority of Americans on this issue or not? The signs do not seem good. Imam Rauf had told the American public that his purpose is bridge-building and reconciliation. Yet when he sees that the opposite has happened, that the public doesn't want the mosque/community center 600 feet from Ground Zero, he sternly persists; even refusing the offer of Gov. Paterso to find another nice site farther from Ground Zero. This suggests to me that Rauf's real purpose is something other than bridge-building and reconciliation. He doesn't care about it. I'm sorry, I wish it wasn't so. Imam Rauf also chose horrible spokesmen for the mosque during the first month of the controversy. This included Nihad Awad the head of CAIR (several of whose officials are in jail for aiding terrorism), who claimed that all opposition to the project was "a plot against Islam." I heard him say this on TV. How do you New Republic elite folks think THAT played in Peoria? Yet this is Rauf's cohort.
- ProfEthan
September 3, 2010 at 12:33am
It's upsetting to me that people are making the mosque about Israel and/or Jews. It isn't, obviously. I also don't see that protests about the mosque, due to its location, mean these protests are about all of Islam. And, if there are funding issues, extremism and/or a real estate scam involved, those become legal matters. I guess at this point I come down on the side of the Constitution because, in the end, there isn't a better answer. People are going to be upset no matter what; therefore, we fall back on the core ideals of our nation. I think these ideals have served us well and they will guide us with this issue too. That's also the best answer to those who hate.
- Sophia
September 3, 2010 at 1:40am
"What, then, is this existential necessity for this mosque to be built right there on that specific spot?" I asked. And NR143296 answered with a question: "What was the "existential imperative" of the Little Rock 9 to attend the previously all-white school despite the obvious protests?" I think the comparison between the two cases says all that needs to be said. The answer lies in the difference between them. The absolute necessity to abolish an evil system of segregation and abuse versus a whim of some Muslim leaders to build a mosque at a controversial site. What evil system will be abolished by building this mosque next to Ground Zero? What urgent HUMAN and CIVIC needs will be fulfilled by this project at this very location that cannot be achieved a few blocks away? I want to thank NR143296 for clarifying the ethical matter so well.
- noga1
September 3, 2010 at 7:23am
BTW, NR143296, when you decided to insert the term "waive" into the discussion of the mosque you are the one who implied an undeniable necessity. Waiving a right is always done within a context of need. The fact that I go about my business everyday without standing at street corners and preaching to people about politics does not mean I waive my right to exercising free speech.
- noga1
September 3, 2010 at 7:29am
noga - The comparison between the Little Rock 9 and this current situation does indeed say all that needs to be said. One involved the absolute necessity to abolish an evil system of segregation; the other involves the absolute necessity to make sure an evil system of segregation based on religious beliefs is not begun. What "urgent human and civic needs will be fulfilled" is exactly the opposite question of what needs to be asked; there should be no need for someone to defend their exercise of Constitutional rights. Instead, if someone wants others' rights to be limited, the question should instead be "What overriding civic concern would justify the extraordinary step of limiting this right?" And your claim that "waiving a right is always done within a context of need" is, to be extremely polite, an extreme exaggeration. People waive rights all the time because of convenience or whim; imperatives need never be involved (though they certainly might be in some cases). As for ProfEthan, why exactly are being an American and being a Muslim conflicting interests? Perhaps Christians protesting abortion clinics should recognize that they are antagonizing America, since a majority of Americans are pro-choice. Perhaps they should cease their protesting, acknowledge that they are primarily Americans who respect American feelings, and could apologize for their mistake and insensitivity to end the damage they're doing to the reputation of the American Christian community. Perhaps "Americans" and "American feelings" are not homogenous categories.
- janus
September 3, 2010 at 10:07am
I agree with Noga that the comparison with Little Rock is misconceived and worse. And, I'm surprised that no one has brought up the comparison with obscenity laws and the like. These may be extremely tricky, but they coexist somehow with the constitution. And, it is the job of government to mind the shop, in matters, slippery as the distinction might be, that violate the sensibilities of the community, UNLESS. Unless there is an overriding, cardinal concern ... Phobic attitudes about a slippery slope don't seem to me to be, a priori, such a concern. But, is the government of NYC minding the shop? If they aren't, it becomes very difficult to deal with.
- yerubal
September 3, 2010 at 10:38am
ProfEthan, that's bollocks. Were interracial couples like Loving and before them part of the American community when they engaged in the unpopular move of marrying across race? If the majority of Americans were opposed to the building of synagogues, would this mean that Jews were unAmerican for attempting to build one? Are people who vote Libertarian party or Constitutional party part of a global right wing community instead o the American community because their political views are unpopular here? In the case of obscenity laws, the weight is on government to prove an overriding concern, not on the alleged purveyor of obscenity (and speaking of which, where are the protests againts the ground zero strip club?)
- miceelf
September 3, 2010 at 10:56am
sophia: "It's upsetting to me that people are making the mosque about Israel and/or Jews." New York City and adjacent suburban counties have the biggest Jewish population outside of Israel. If the selection of this site has any underlying symbolism of 'victory triumphalism' re:9/11, it is also, in the view of many NY metro Jews, a symbol for Islam's future ascendancy over what Jesse Jackson once called Hymie-town. Just as close to City Hall as Ground Zero. This is too complicated for a simplistic comment. If nothing else, it sure is giving the Democratic Party heartburn to see Jewish voters as opposed to this location as Catholic voters, and is going to change the elections this year in New York. The high profile (because it was originally meant for UN delegates/employees and their families)Islamic Center at 97th street has already had to remove two imams (that we know of) for inflammatory antisemitism in published interviews. I hesitate to point out that the Little Rock 9 did NOT change the hearts and minds of segregationists overnight. My high school in Miami did not de-segregate until 1968. Brown v Board was totally needed, but the Constitution is not always the magic wand.
- K2K
September 3, 2010 at 10:59am
Yerubai, my point is that many people believe, emotionally, that if Rauf meant what he said about reconciliation, he'd agree to a compromise. Is that so crazy? The feeling that he is not part of the American community--a feeling based not primarily on racism but on the specific facts about this specific project--lies at the heart of the emotion opposing the mosque. That was my point. This was an analysis of the situation on my part, not advocacy of a particular position. Though, as I said, the signs are not good about this man and his project. You may think it's a stupid emotion, but that is irrelevant to the analysis I was making. It's not the building of mosques per se in any case that's the issue; there are plenty in New York (just like there are synagogues). The issue is the public's perception of what is the sensibility of this man who sends out people onto TV who proclaim that opposition to the mosque is "a plot against Islam." His action may be legal but it is highly offensive to a large majority of the American people and he does not care. If he does not care, then the entire purpose of the mosque/community center which he has proclaimed--reconciliation and bridge-building--is a lie. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to build the mosque. But that's what I mean when I wrote: "How do you think this plays in Peoria?"
- ProfEthan
September 3, 2010 at 11:17am
Thank you Janus. You beat me to it with your response to Noga. And said it better than I would have. K2K says: "I hesitate to point out that the Little Rock 9 did NOT change the hearts and minds of segregationists overnight. My high school in Miami did not de-segregate until 1968. Brown v Board was totally needed, but the Constitution is not always the magic wand." You said the same thing a week or so ago K2K. So what is your point? That the Little Rock 9 should have backed down in the face of the intense opposition? One could have argued that they should have backed down for the own safety, but one could not legitimately have criticized them for being insensitive to the angst-ridden whites who opposed them. It was the beginning of a long struggle to be sure. So what? Does that mean it should not have been begun? Are you saying that Muslims should wait until that are fully accepted by other Americans before they should exercise their constitutional rights?
- NR143296
September 3, 2010 at 12:12pm
"One involved the absolute necessity to abolish an evil system of segregation; the other involves the absolute necessity to make sure an evil system of segregation based on religious beliefs is not begun." Does that mean you believe that the intention of the opposition to the mosque by the families of those who perished in 9/11, and those who support them, is to begin "an evil system of segregation based on religious beliefs"?
- noga1
September 3, 2010 at 6:21pm
It's been said already but the analogy of the Little Rock Nine is really a weak and shaky one. If Muslims had been barred for generations from building mosques or worshipping freely in the U.S. at all, then I'd agree that one could draw parallels with a history of segregation and intimidation deeply entwined with American struggles over who counts as a human being, a history that should be confronted and defeated, and where constitutional rights take precedence over racist hatred and local paranoia. I don't see any evidence that Muslims have suffered such oppression, however. There has been a mosque for 40+ years in the same Manhattan neighborhood, which (as far as I know) is in operation to the present day. While some Muslims have indeed suffered from being singled out after 9/11 for reasons that seem to be less than coherent, there are no segregated lunch counters, water fountains, or train compartments to which Muslims are forced, upon pain of violence, to use on a daily basis. If there is any segregation, it would seem to be self-selected, and of course everyone has the right to remain within their community. All in all, the Little Rock comparison works to the Park51 group's disadvantage. Just to clarify, I'm not taking a position on the mosque here (FWIW I have elsewhere) but I want to challenge the Little Rock Nine analogy as being a misleading attempt to paint the Park51 group as an oppressed minority on the scale of the black population in the Jim Crow South.
- ironyroad
September 3, 2010 at 7:44pm
" ... the analogy of the Little Rock Nine is really a weak and shaky one" I'd like to repeat Oliver Kamm's instruction on the use of historical analogies. "Historical analogies are never exact but sometimes useful. If they are to be useful, then the precedent needs at a minimum to be stated accurately."
- noga1
September 3, 2010 at 10:01pm
well stated irony. It is an insult to African-Americans to conflate their historical tragedy with a dispute over a mosque location. I do think Muslims should stop trying to force non-believers to accomodate every Muslim demand. Tolerance requires reciprocity. Would make their wait a bit shorter, but I doubt Muslims will ever be fully accepted in America as long as Islam is a religion incapable of divorce from sharia law, a pre-medieval political ideology, ingrained proselytizing, and the celebration of violence. NR143296: your angry attack on my words is bizarre. Pointing out how long it can take for attitudes to change is not impossible for a human to understand. Seems TNR is populated by legal-zombies-in-a-bubble programmed to lash out at any deviation from their orthodoxy.
- K2K
September 3, 2010 at 11:04pm
Noga says: "Does that mean you believe that the intention of the opposition to the mosque by the families of those who perished in 9/11, and those who support them, is to begin 'an evil system of segregation based on religious beliefs'"? That may not be their intention, but that is what they are fomenting. Do you think people who opposed the de-segregation of schools thought of themsellves as sustaining an evil system of segregation?
- NR143296
September 4, 2010 at 12:51am
I am a little bit surprised at you Irony. The point isn't to compare the historical plight of Muslims in America with the historical plight of blacks in America. The point is to illustrate the invalidity of blaming the conflict that on the proponents of the mosque rather than on the opposition. It certainly could have been argued that the Little Rock 9 were wrong to attend that all-white school, even though they had a constitutional right to do so, because of the conflict and potential violence that might ensue, and because of the angst and anger that would be felt by all of those white kids (and their parents). But the potential for conflict would rightly have been laid at the feet of the opposition rather than the feet of the Little Rock 9. Likewise, the "offense" taken by those who oppose the mosque, even those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero, is based on ignorance and bias. THEY are the cause of the conflict, not the proponents of the mosque.
- NR143296
September 4, 2010 at 1:15am
K2K- Let's see, you say things like "the Oik-heads can blissfully lull themselves to sleep with the lyrics of the really clueless Leon Wieseltier[,]" and "TNR is populated by legal-zombies-in-a-bubble programmed to lash out at any deviation from their orthodoxy[,]" and I'M the one who is guilty of an "angry attack"? I asked you some legitimate questions, as I did the first time around. And you haven't answered them.
- NR143296
September 4, 2010 at 1:32am
Those who mention the constitution speak beside the point. No one is against building mosques, churches, synagogues. On the other hand Islam is notorious about building mosques on other religions and people's sacred places for example St. Sophia in Turkey and Al Aksa on Temple Mont atop the remains of the Temple. Same here. If they could have they would have build a mosque smack on ground zero. They could not since it was already taken so they want to build as close as possible just as they did build a mosque on designated parking lot for the Church of the annunciation in Nazareth. As for the imam being moderate, maybe but this can't guaranty that this mosque will not be taken over by some Wahabi preacher in the future preaching an Islam of Jihad while pointing at ground zero where "Shahids" gave their life for the glory of Islam. As for the writer dreaming of a dialogue with Islam, it is only a dream. Wake up to the sound of suicide bombers, missiles from Hitzbollah and Hamas. Islam itself can't have a dialogue between it's different streams. They blow up each other's mosques. Which brings us to the fact that if that mosque is build. I have an advise for you. Avoid passing by it! That mosque may blow up at any time by a not so moderate Islamic fanatic.
- Poupic
September 4, 2010 at 7:58am
further to what Poupic wrote: "Another Tack: From Brooklyn to Park Place" By SARAH HONIG 09/03/2010 16:53 "The FBI is offering $5 million for information on my fellow high school alumna’s ex-neighbor – Adnan el-Shukrijumah, al-Qaida’s new head of global operations." "A couple of weeks ago Kathy, my fellow alumna of New York’s High School of Music and Art (renamed the LaGuardia High School for the Arts), sent me an update on a column I devoted (some two years back) to our much-belated reunion. The next day roughly the same information appeared in The Jerusalem Post, datelined Miramar, Florida. A quick Google showed it was widely reported. The gist was that Adnan el-Shukrijumah has apparently become al-Qaida’s new head of global operations, in charge of plotting new attacks. This promotion puts him in direct contact with Osama bin Laden. This is the highest any American ever rose in al-Qaida ranks. How does this pertain to Kathy? Shukrijumah was her neighbor, but no one would heed her warnings in real time. Indeed, even after Shukrijumah went on the lam, she tried almost desperately to convince me that something bad was happening next door to the house which generations of Kathy’s Irish family had occupied since it was built in 1912. Eventually, it was passed down to her. She and her husband raised three kids in the same two-story, redbrick dwelling on a leafy, cozy and quiet Brooklyn residential street. Both Kathy and her father grew up there and neither knew any other home. Their story wasn’t unique among the house-proud Irish of that neighborhood, where property tended to stay in the family and where things never changed too radically. But no more. Not only are Kathy’s sons and daughter no longer nearby, but she describes them as having “escaped.” Kathy’s birthplace is now a mini-Pakistan/Bangladesh, replete with bearded men sporting all manner of Muslim headgear and long flowing tunics, as well as heavily swathed women, some even veiled. The corner of Kathy’s block is dominated by an oversized green sign, identifying the low-slung building beneath it as Masjid Nur al-Islam (the Light of Islam Mosque) and announcing that “only Allah is worthy of worship and Muhammad is his LAST prophet.” Christians are urged to “turn to the Koran” if they are “genuinely faithful to Jesus.” Like the few remaining non-Muslim homes on the street, Kathy’s is distinguished by a huge American flag that flutters demonstratively in the manicured front yard, accompanied by a large cross on the door and an assortment of patriotic/jingoistic banners. According to Kathy’s apologetics at the time, “making a statement is about all we can do. They aren’t delighted to see our flag wave. This is enemy territory.” She felt besieged and, to prove she wasn’t paranoid, Kathy began amassing a dossier on the masjid, the imam who ran it and his followers. She insisted they weren’t innocent practitioners of American religious freedom. She smelled something sinister, yet was painfully aware that she would be branded either unhinged or bigoted. Her research, however, seems to indicate otherwise. UNTIL THE mid-1990s, Masjid Nur al-Islam’s imam was the late Egyptian-educated Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, who later relocated to Florida. He was initially dispatched by the Saudis as a Wahhabi missionary in 1985 and financed by them thereafter. His disciple Clement Rodney Hampton- El, an explosives specialist, possibly helped assemble the bomb detonated in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. He was convicted of plotting to blow up the UN, FBI headquarters and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels. Gulshair acted as interpreter for Omar Abdel-Rahman, the “Blind Sheikh” now serving life for the first WTC bombing, conspiring to use explosives at other NYC landmarks and colluding to assassinate US politicians. Nabbed mastermind of the 9/11 plot, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, fingered Gulshair’s eldest son, Saudi-born Adnan, as having been designated by al-Qaida and personally vetted by Bin Laden to lead new terror assaults and serve as successor to 9/11 pilot Mohammed Atta, with whom Adnan was connected. The FBI now deduces that Adnan had taken over Mohammed’s position, designing and approving terror plots and recruits. After two other top confederates were killed, the terrorist who grew in Brooklyn became Mohammed’s sole de facto successor. Adnan received flight training and is dubbed “Jaffar the pilot.” He was likewise linked to “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla, Hamas and al-Qaida fund-raiser Adham Hassoun and terrorist Imran Mandhai (convicted of conspiring to bomb the National Guard armory, South Florida electrical substations, Jewish-owned businesses and community centers and Mount Rushmore). Criminal charges were filed against Adnan. He was named in a federal indictment as conspirator in the plot to bomb New York’s subways in 2009. In the framework of a worldwide manhunt, the FBI offers $5 million for information leading to the capture of Kathy’s ex-neighbor. Adnan’s brother Nabil, incidentally, uploaded to his Web page an image of Jerusalem ablaze with the caption: “Al Kuds, we are coming.” None of this serves to persuade our uniformly ultra-liberal chums from yesteryear’s M&A that Kathy’s misgivings were warranted. Former classmates and friends see her as irremediably politically incorrect, on the wrong side of the argument, if not altogether a reprehensible Islamophobe enemy of human rights and the hallowed ACLU way. THE FACT that she now vehemently opposes the construction of the Cordoba House mosque/Muslim center, a hop and a skip from Ground Zero, hasn’t added to her popularity. “It’s very déjà vu, except that the proportions and the gall are enormously more colossal. In our case there was no outcry. Nobody paid attention to a no account commercial property in a forgotten section of middle-class Brooklyn. The high-and-mighty didn’t care that it was overtaken by extreme Islamists. Our lives were turned upside down. The newcomers weren’t required to integrate and show sensitivity to the natives. Live-and-let-live didn’t apply to them. For years the mosque had been calling the faithful to prayers via rooftop loudspeakers five times daily – including predawn,” Kathy recounts. “When we complained, the authorities regarded us, not them, as the disruptive element.” Everything was couched in terms of freedom of worship. Kathy and her neighbors argued that “this isn’t about rights. Something was going on there, but no one listened until it was too late.” For Kathy the projected Muslim complex at 45-51 Park Place is “another installment in the same sad saga – again fraudulently couched in religious-freedom gobbledygook.” Kathy is leery of the imam behind the Cordoba House plans, Feisal Abdul Rauf, who speaks of a “Shari’a- compliant America.” After 9/11 Rauf opined that “the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened... In the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.” Pointedly, Rauf refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. “What message does using the name Cordoba send?” asks Kathy. “The first city conquered by Muslims in Spain conjures visions of Muslim expansionism, triumph and gloating. It’s like turning Constantinople’s Hagia Sophia into a mosque, like constructing mosques on Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, like blowing up majestic Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. The issue isn’t our tolerance but their intolerance.” " http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=186795 www.sarahhonig.com
- K2K
September 4, 2010 at 10:32am
09/03/2010 - 11:04pm EDT | K2K [repeated from THIS thread] ...I do think Muslims should stop trying to force non-believers to accomodate every Muslim demand. Tolerance requires reciprocity. Would make their wait a bit shorter, but I doubt Muslims will ever be fully accepted in America as long as Islam is a religion incapable of divorce from sharia law, a pre-medieval political ideology, ingrained proselytizing, and the celebration of violence. NR143296: your angry attack on my words is bizarre. Pointing out how long it can take for attitudes to change is not impossible for a human to understand. Seems TNR is populated by legal-zombies-in-a-bubble programmed to lash out at any deviation from their orthodoxy.
- K2K
September 4, 2010 at 10:37am
[K2K response [in brackets] to NR143296 copied from the Wieseltier thread since NR143296 continues to attack K2K for not answering his "legitimate questions, which only NR143296 argues are never answered] 09/04/2010 - 12:49am EDT | K2K [response to] 09/03/2010 - 11:46pm EDT | NR143296: "K2K-The only reason anyone cares about all the crap [facts = crap] you are raising is that it is a Muslim facility [not really - I would be at a real estate blog dissecting the scam. It is the liberal media that made a mountain out of a two-bit mole-hole solely because Muslims are involved]. The issue isn't Rauf or El-Gamal, it's what is going on in the brains of the people [that would be maybe 180,000,000 brains] who oppose the facilityu without knowing anything [180,000,000 know NOTHING?] at all about Rauf or El-Gamal. They oppose it because it is a Muslim facility to be placed near [on] a spot [specifically chosen because it was damaged on 9/11/2001] where some jihadists [sent on their mission by AlQaeda, a violent global network of Wahabbist Islamists as practiced by tens of millions of Muslims and supported by hundreds of millions of Muslims] committed a terrorist act [that incinerated more than 2,700 people and destroyed two iconic buildings that symbolized western capitalism - named the World Trade Center -which is a bit more than 'a terrorist act' like a suicide bomber murdering 100 people in a disco or 241 American military in Beirut]. They [the ignorant, possibly mentally disabled, majority of Americans] conflate jihad with Islam [so YOU think]. And they would have the government stop the project on that basis [so Statist - the preferred technique of the Left!]. Or they seek to entreat or pressure Rauf and company to relinquish their constitutional rights in order not to offend those whose offense is based on ignorance. [if you say so, oh, Zombie-king of the Orwellian land called Onebigliefullofoiksistan]." [The inability of any one person to perceive that 60% to 70% of Americans may have different knowledge levels and different reasons for opposition is a threat to American pluralism and democracy, a form of political repression that is like Stalin, Pol Pot, or Chavez]. If a few Muslims wanted to create a mosque with a swimming pool to serve the downtown NYC community, they had ample opportunity to develop their concept the way everyone else in NYC does, instead of deliberately using access to Mayor Bloomberg to bypass all normal processes and whining about persecution with each criticism. Example: it took five years to get acceptance from all stakeholders for a non-denominational community center in Battery Park City, the residential neighborhood immediately to the west of southern Tribeca, with zero zoning or legal issues. Oik all you want, but do not arrogantly demean and insult two thirds of America with sweeping generalizations and accusations of mindless ignorance and bigotry in a grand display of your personal ignorance and bigotry. The New York Times assigned themselves to arrogantly demean and insult everyone with a different opinion]
- K2K
September 4, 2010 at 10:43am
"I am a little bit surprised at you Irony. The point isn't to compare the historical plight of Muslims in America with the historical plight of blacks in America. The point is to illustrate the invalidity of blaming the conflict that on the proponents of the mosque rather than on the opposition." I think the point may not be what you think the point is, NR. If you draw the LR9-Cordoba Project analogy, you can't simply restrict the meanings of the analogy to those you want to be perceived and suppress the others. Maybe in some extremely restricted sense the comparison of 'constitutional rights to build a mosque right there' and 'constitutional rights to non-racially segregated public schooling in the American South' is simply a comparison of rights, but almost anyone will want to interrogate the parallels a little as you draw them. And when one examines the detailed historical signficance and background of the Little Rock Nine, it's obvious that you are trying to line up an exhausting struggle against generations of prejudice and racial violence with a desire by a bunch or rich folks to build a particular kind of building at location X instead of location X-plus-three miles away. That won't fly.
- ironyroad
September 4, 2010 at 1:42pm
The question here, Irony, is whether there is a justification for suspension/waiver of constitutional rights, and/or whether the initiators of the mosque are in the wrong for exercising those rights. I used the Little Rock 9 example precisely because no reasonable person could argue that the Little Rock 9 were in the wrong for exercising their constitutional rights, despite the conflict, perhaps even violent conflict, that excercise would engender. So, let's stipulate to your premise that the stakes were much higher in the Little Rock 9 case than they are here. How does that support the argument that the initiators of the mosque are in the wrong for exercising their constitutional rights?
- NR143296
September 5, 2010 at 4:35pm
"How does that support the argument that the initiators of the mosque are in the wrong for exercising their constitutional rights?" But that's not the argument. You want it to be about the constitution. But it's not. The American constitution gives to citizens the right to bear arms. But when we find out in the news about arsenals of arms found in the basement of people's homes we frown upon the phenomenon and we ask, rightly, why a person would need all these arms. "It's my constitutional right to possess these weapons" the person answers. "That's all you need to know. If you say you find something reprehensible about my arsenal then you in effect tell me that I'm wrong to exercise my constitutional rights". The human mind is such that it wants to understand the logic of things. The GZM protesters want to understand what is so important about the need to build this thing right here, right now, and in spite of the obvious indignation people express. The fact that you cannot explain it except through the constitution and by offering analogies that do violence to the recorded history of the civil rights movement means you don't have a plausible explanation. That means that the project will go on and people will continue to feel uneasy about it because they do not understand it. That seems to be in direct contradiction to the stated goals of this project. Another enigma.
- noga1
September 5, 2010 at 5:24pm
On the contrary, the Constitution is at the core of the matter. Even in your example, the Constitution would be implicated. The question would be whether other considerations trump the Second Amendment. A law preventing private ownerhship of an "arsenal of arms" would likely be held constitutional. And, of course, because weapons are inherently dangerous, the discomfort and questions would have a rational basis. The conflation of Jihad and Islam, especially American Islam, is not a rational basis for the discomfort that some people feel about the "ground zero" mosque. All the more so, it is not a justification for pressuring Rauf and company to relinquish their right. Moreover, your equation of the mosque with an "arsenals of arms," perhaps inadvertently, confirms that your opposition to it is based on a stereotype about Muslims. I have not once in these threads attempted to provide an "explanation" of why Rauf and company want to build their community center and place of worship. It is neither my nor their burden to do so. It is those who oppose the exercise of constitutional rights that have the burden to justify their opposition. Sometimes they can. Under American constitutional jurisprudence, no right is absolute. For example, speech can sometimes be restricted if the restriction is not "content-" or "viewpoint-" based, and there is a "compelling governmnental interest" in applying the restriction. Under the religion clauses, laws of general application that unintentionally restrict the exercise of religion have been upheld. But I have not heard anyone here articulate a "compelling governmental interest" that would trump Rauf and company's right to the free exercise of religion, or point to any law of general application that would prevent them from building their mosque. Also, to be fair, though you personally may simply be asking questions, it would be disingenuous to claim that most opposers are merely asking questions rather venting vociferous opposition -- opposition based merely on the fact that it is a mosque. Oh, I know, people have come up with all kinds of post-hoc pretexts for opposing the mosque, but do you really think more than a handful of people would care if it were a cathedral or a synagogue?
- NR143296
September 5, 2010 at 7:05pm
"but do you really think more than a handful of people would care if it were a cathedral or a synagogue?" Yes. More than a handful. Many more than a handful. Enough to recall the general outcry that followed that poor Seattle schmuck who dared question why Seattle's airport was decorated with Christmas trees but not one Jewish Menorah for Hanukka. He too was exercising his rights for free speech and religion. The airport authority opted to remove the trees rather than add one Menorah to the collection. Perhaps there is a model for action in this little tale. "Moreover, your equation of the mosque with an "arsenals of arms," perhaps inadvertently, confirms that your opposition to it is based on a stereotype about Muslims." It's a different clause in the constitution about a very different right. You sound a bit desperate when you make these kinds of analogies. But I can see it makes you feel good, to ventilate your hostility when you cannot in good faith offer a plausible explanation as to why it is necessary and useful to build a hubridic project with a triumphalist name and an ambiguous Imam right there on the property damaged by the 9/11 Muslim terrorists and so close to the GZ. Surely people so genuinely concerned with inter-religious dialogue can think of a more effective way to spend $M100 on promoting tolerance? The Cordova Initiators are not required to provide any explanation to anyone about the purpose of their building. But perhaps you, who has no stake in this project, can provide a satisfactory justification?
- noga1
September 5, 2010 at 8:16pm
With all respect Noga, it is you who raised the Second Amendment analogy. And it is you who are prone to psychological attacks on those who disagree with you. I don't care why the intiators want to build the community center, unless it can be shown that there is some actionable reason to believe they intend to engage in subversive or otherwise illegal activities. The focus should be not on the motivations of the initiators, but on the motivations of the opposers, for it is they who seek to cast aside the Constitution. Your reference to the "Seattle schmuck" seems once again to prove my point. Based on your description, it is the outcriers who were wrong, not the "poor schmuck." Here, it is the opposition to the mosque that stands in the shoes of the Seattle outcriers, and the initiators of the mosque who stand in the shoes of the "poor schmuck."
- NR143296
September 5, 2010 at 10:30pm
NR, you categorically stated that ""but do you really think more than a handful of people would care if it were a cathedral or a synagogue?" and I provided the poor schmuck tale to show you that you were wrong, that people mind very much when their religious sensibilities are imposed upon, even when the imposition is a slight one and from a Jewish initiator. You can manufacture any sort of analogies you care if it makes you happy. In fact, the more irrelevant analogies you draw the more desperate you sound in your "advocacy" of the GZM.
- noga1
September 5, 2010 at 11:33pm
They are YOUR analogies Noga. Why would the 9/11 survivors' sensibilities, or any Christian or Jew's sensibilities, be "imposed upon" by a cathedral or synagogue being established in that location? Your admission that the sensibilities are "religious" shows that the religion clauses of the First Amendment are implicated.
- NR143296
September 6, 2010 at 1:13am
"Your admission that the sensibilities are "religious" shows that the religion clauses of the First Amendment are implicated." That's like saying: Your admission that coffee is a hot beverage shows that boiling water is implicated.
- noga1
September 6, 2010 at 7:39am
NR143296 "but do you really think more than a handful of people would care if it were a cathedral or a synagogue?" Insistence that the only valid criteria for debate, and for ending the debate, is Constitutional legality makes NR143296 like one of the blind men trying to describe an elephant, a story from the Jain, which should be the religion building their temple at 45 Park Place: "ELEPHANT AND THE BLIND MEN" Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, "Hey, there is an elephant in the village today." They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, "Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway." All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant. "Hey, the elephant is a pillar," said the first man who touched his leg. "Oh, no! it is like a rope," said the second man who touched the tail. "Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree," said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant. "It is like a big hand fan" said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant. "It is like a huge wall," said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant. "It is like a solid pipe," Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant. They began to argue about the elephant and everyone of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, "What is the matter?" They said, "We cannot agree to what the elephant is like." Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said." "Oh!" everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right. The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, "Maybe you have your reasons." This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions. " http://www.jainworld.com/literature/story25.htm Instead of the Jain, the answer to NR143296's question "but do you really think more than a handful of people would care if it were a cathedral or a synagogue?" is: THAT controversy started on Sunday with evangelist Bill Keller's inaugural sermon at "9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero" where the NYT titled the article "From the Other Side of Ground Zero, Anti-Muslim Venom" and did everything possible to characterize Keller as an extremist ex-con, quite a contrast with the NYT ongoing refusal to note any of sordid activities and double-speak of Rauf and Khan and El-Gamal, all of whom remain silent since last week's revelations of tax-dodging, and evidence of a general contempt for civic decency.
- K2K
September 6, 2010 at 10:32am
The constitutionality issue can also be a red herring, NR, as this is not a case of every other constitutional right in the U.S. simply being declared and then unproblematically put into practice, while Park51 stands as an embarrassing anomaly. It doesn't happen that way. In and around the state legislature here in TN, there are extreme Second Amendment folks who want to put guns in our university classrooms, and luckily there has been so far enough of a counter-movement that that kind of gun law "reform" (open or concealed carry with no restrictions permitted on the part of other bodies, e.g. a church or school) could be kept buried in the bowels of committee, and not escaping. This is good, but nerve-wracking. Nobody denies the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court has pushed its purview even farther than ever before. However, the interpretation and execution of that right within the matrix of other legal requirements and issues e.g. public order, property rights, aviation security, are not just a matter of closing down every other consideration and standing on absolute authority of the Constitution. Other matters get consideration. Hence no guns in the classroom, so far. Likewise here.
- ironyroad
September 6, 2010 at 9:09pm
More from Halevi, answering Ron Radosh's critique of his letter: http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2010/09/10/a-response-from-yossi-klein-halevi-and-my-response-to-him/ " Perhaps if there were large numbers of unequivocal moderates, I wouldn’t need Imam Feisal as a dialogue partner. But there aren’t. And as an Israeli and a Jew, I need him desperately. I need him because large parts of the Muslim world are going the way that large parts of the Christian world went in the 1930s. Yes, Imam Feisal has advocated a one-state solution, and I’ve spent much time over the last years countering the demonization of Israel generally and the pernicious notion of the“one state” destruction of Israel in particular. Yet he is also a Muslim who is willing to publicly engage with Jews, to unequivocally condemn suicide bombing attacks against Israelis and is open to discussing the religious meaning for Jews of our return home to the land of Israel. That is a basis for engagement and debate. Rather than seek the telltale quote that will supposedly resolve whether he is a genuine moderate or a closest jihadist, I prefer to treat him with respect and – not as a tactic, as you suggest, but because that is the prerequisite for genuine dialogue.We need an approach that doesn’t resort to the blinders of the left or the sledgehammers of the right. If the result sounds “confusing,” I’m willing to live with a certain amount of disonance, at least in my religious conversations."
- noga1
September 10, 2010 at 8:07pm